Often it is very helpful for understanding when an issue is also described with pictures. Therefore I would appreciate it if in the future would be a possibility for the direct involvement of screenshots in a post. By this I mean not only the use of a link to an image but the direct display of the image in a post. This could be done for example through the use of an image tag.
You're free to upload to imgur.com or any other free image hosting service. We don't provide the ability to show them inline as this is generally abused, especially by spammers. It's no skin off anyone's back to click a link to view an image you reference in your post if they want to. And by having it be a link, it's their choice if they want to view the image or not.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
That may be an argument to protect themselves against spammers. But still I wonder, why then a series of other forums provide this option. You could make particularly vividly tutorials.
It's not a limitation in the software, it's a restriction. Major abuse could occur if regular users were able to include images right in their post.
You can still do whatever you like, but a user has to choose to see any image you link. It's up to the reader, not the poster.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
The 911CD.net forums allow for images and while it occasionally gets a SPAMmer rarely do they use images for their SPAM, mostly they use links.
So if SPAM is a major concern, restrict links and allow images instead.
Ed
As Ed_P already mentioned above, one can not completely exclude the abuse of SPAM neither in links nor in images. In this respect is a weighting of the benefits against the disadvantages more crucial. Therefore I would advocate the use of images in the posts due to the high utility value.
I too would think to combat SPAM it would be better to allow pics and not links. You could argue that with a link you may have no idea where the link is taking you. This is especially true when using URL shortners.
It amazes me that on the internet you can be anything you want, and yet so many people still choose to be idiots.
I think you're missing the point here. Although images in posts would be great for productivity, people can also use it to post extremely inappropriate content. People reading threads would not have the choice of what content they want to see, and what they don't.
To add on, some images might stretch the thread/page.
Of course there are always some objections against the use of certain things. Let's take a practical example. Do we eliminate the car just because you also has the disadvantage of suffering an accident? The answer is clear. You must take also disadvantages into account, because we live in a real imperfect world.
For example, in µTorrent forum exists the possibility of the use of pictures, which I myself have already used. And I'm very impressed with this feature.
Yes, but in some things, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
To use your example, think about how many more accidents would happen if anyone, licensed or not, trained or not, could get in a car and attempt to drive it.
There is a system in place not to completely remove the risk, but to minimize it as much as possible.
While you can police the words that posted in a forum, and even police the sites that are linked to in a post somewhat, it is much harder to programmatically determine what is a "bad" image.
I have to agree with John on this one, images in posts shouldn't be allowed here. While images may be appropriate for some forums, I don't think it is necessary here, and would only cause more issues for moderators to handle.
I don't think you thought about what I was referring to when I said "extremely inappropriate content".
People could post the p word and readers will have no choice but view it due to the lack of a warning. With a link, it's possible to identify where the link might lead based on contents of the post. (Ex: I'm having trouble with Firefox Portable. Here's the error...)
Certainly I've been thinking about your objection. You mentioned that "People could be p word ....". But let me examine this purely theoretical possibility whether it actually influenced on the practice. To this end I have compiled the following criteria:
With very high probability the most users visit a forum to inform himself about a particular topic. Consequently, they certainly did not waste their time trying to realize the negative effects that you describe.
In order to realize the negative effects that you describe is certainly a special insider knowledge required. And the number of users who have such knowledge is certainly not particularly high.
One can certainly appropriate countermeasures in a forum set up in order to block those harmful effects
Meanwhile, there are a variety of forums, which allow you to insert pictures. And the operators of these forums surely know the danger you describe. But they will have weighed the impact of this danger and have recognized that this risk is rather low.
Conclusion:
Even if your described danger has not completely ruled out, it is rather rare in practice. It would be pity if one would relinquish on this feature, just because you want to exclude these low risk. Obviously is the added value for the forum by far higher. But not least, the argument concerning the bandwidth is negligible, since nowadays increasingly available high-speed Internet connections.
While a good solution might be for John to add a forum group for those trusted to post images, and that group would be allowed to, and access would be by request and/or tenure only, I'd rather it not be done that way for many reasons given. Plus, I like that this site is light on bandwidth.
There exists a Firefox extension called Text-to-Image, or TTI. It was mainly used for GameFAQs when that site did not allow images (I think it still doesn't). It basically parses any link to an image into an inline image. In other words, it will make a forum that does not support inline images into one that does... for you. It also has options, e.g. to make the images only a certain size, i.e. 200x200, and then get bigger with a click. Look it up.
Nobody's in the dark about the advantages of images vs. text, but there are good reason to not parse image URLs and just leave them clickable.
Since the development of broadband Internet connections continues inexorably, the loading times of the inserted pictures are to neglect.
>development of broadband Internet connections continues inexorably,
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
Of course exist still slow and sometimes expensive Internet connections. But you should not been oriented on these exceptions.
Incidentally, I have found a solution to your problem with Thunderbird 5.0 and Lightning (see your post). In the dialog box titled "Unresponsive script" you must click the "Next Run" button on the left. Then it is crucial to wait some time until the script was run completely.
Bandwidth may not be a concern relative to an individual user, but John must pay for providing the bandwidth to all of us. If posts contain many images and each of us download it, then his bandwidth costs would soar. I think it is irresponsible to ask John to absorb those costs.
John, Please, Please, Please do not include images! The ability to link to necessary images is more than adequate.
Clair
The images aren't downloaded from PortableApps.com, so John's bandwidth wouldn't be effected.
John would have no control of the content.
Clair
There are so many other things that take priority over images in posts. We got the new platform, a new app directory, a new website look in the future being worked on, new hardware partnerships and legal stuffs, and a massive spam attack that came outta nowhere (last count was 134 topics). Too much stuff's going right now to worry about putting pictures in forum topics. Links to pictures work fine and have been working fine for nearly everybody since the dawn of time (or whenever PA was started).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Last night, I was dedicated to finishing Eclipse Portable 3.7, and ended up sitting by and watching that spam attack one post at a time.
At least the update saved my two Eclipse Portable topics from the spam attack..
I got a feelin that the spammer was somebody who read this and wanted to make a (stupid and pointless) point.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
[sarcasm]So we should stay with PA 1.6 then??
And we can see how effective not allowing images in posts prevents SPAMmers from posting here. :-0 [/sarcasm]
What happened to the "Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!" concept??
As for bandwidth concerns, it's a valid concern, so the viewing of images should be an option the viewer can turn on or off. This would also satisfy viewers who are overly sensitive to p word (whatever that means) images.
Ed
Nobody said it was. It's just way down on the list of tasks that need to be done by a finite list of people.
IMHO, adding images directly in posts is a meh. Low demand, low ROI.
Maybe once they have release the platform PR1 bugfixes, PR2 and its bugfixes, etc. up to the release of 2.0 final; and after they've got swag for sale, including branded drives; and after GIMP 3.0, FF 7.0, Blender 3.0 are released, and LibreOffice and OpenOffice rejoin into a single entity...
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
If you look at the instructions and tutorials on a variety of websites (particularly the websites of leading manufacturers including Microsoft, Adobe, Nero, etc.), then you will find exactly the opposite of your claim. Concordantly all recognized the pedagogical principle, that Learning through Seeing is the optimal way for aquisition of facts. Precisely for this reason one finds today numerous video tutorials on the Internet.
If you have new information or arguments to add, please do. But restating the single tutorial argument again isn't adding anything to the conversation. And because someone has video tutorials on an actual website (as opposed to a community forum) has nothing to do with this discussion. It is low demand because it's only a couple people who have asked for it. Most of the rest of us don't want it for many reasons. Please read and respond to my post ( https://portableapps.com/node/28641#comment-180473 ) if you wish to continue the discussion.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
1.6 is old and out-of-date with newer (some illegal, arguably better) competitors. So we got to bring it up to speed.
And I don't think the next line was replying to me.
"Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!"
It's one setting, a tick box on a setting page. Takes no time at all. That "we (this arbitrary group) have so many more things to do" is irrelevant. It's a wallpaper change. Do I go with the castle or the canyon? Takes about as much time to change. What takes longer is the decision, which can be done in parallel.
Still, I vote (for what it's worth, which is probably nothing, but still I offer my opinion) no and that those who want it add it themselves with the aforementioned Firefox extension.
If it ain't broke, "fix" it 'til it is. -the United States government.
I've yet to see any advantage to having images inline over having them linked except for extreme edge cases like someone wanting to create a detailed howto guide (in which case, we could always make it official, convert it to a page and allow inline images for said howto guide if it is good and useful). Having them linked leaves it to the user to see them if they want to (not forced on them by the poster). It increases bandwidth requirements, sometimes by a lot (and yes, this matters... you may have unlimited, but lots of our visitors have metered internet). They are generally used for silly things like pictures of faces/rage comics/etc to post as reactions to other posts. They can easily mess up the layout of the forum and news pages and make them a lot longer. And they're easier for spammers to use as a spammer can have the URL and ad in the image and host it on imgur and it's invisible to our spam filter (no words or URLs to filter on).
And, personally, I think forums with inline images in posts tend to look amateurish. That's why most professional or commercial sites with forums don't allow inline images (or have it as an option for members only and usually disabled by default). Add to that the fact that there are only a handful of users who are even interested and have requested it. So, unless there is a truly compelling reason to do it that doesn't have these big negatives, we will not be adding in inline images.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Of course, had my mention of tutorials (both in individual images and in video form), only an exemplary character. Thus I wanted indicate to the principle of pictorial learning what I already mentioned several times.
For example, I recently had discussed in a thread with the developer ottosykora a problem with Thunderbird 5.0 in conjunction with the Lightning extension. He gave me some information from a dialog window. To avoid misunderstandings, it would certainly have been beneficial if he had inserted this dialog window in the form of a screenshot in his thread. Basically, I am firmly convinced that a problem can be discussed more transparent by the use of images. In contrast, by the choice of words may arise ambiguities, since the meaning of words can be interpreted in different ways.
At this point I would like to take this opportunity to express myself to the new platform. I am truly impressed by the variety of new and useful features. A certainly outstanding performance. My heartfelt thanks!!!
Right, so whenever you were making a point, you have a quick linked image. As in "So, after I click the button you mentioned, I see this error and then execution fails." That way you discuss it visually and have a reference example. Nothing is lost by linking as opposed to inline. I'm not arguing against the value of visual. I'm arguing against forcing images on all forum users regardless of whether they are interest in seeing them, on a low bandwidth connection, are using a small screen device, have metered bandwidth that they pay for, etc.
The tutorial example you gave is the only extreme example where it might be useful to be able to view the image and read the text at the same time and quickly refer back and forth between them. That's what I meant by an extreme edge case scenario since those types of posts are highly atypical in forums and we could easily convert it to a page with inline images and make it an official howto.
Glad you're liking the new platform. We're just getting started.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Apparently seems the elimination of the incompatibility between Thunderbird 5.0 and the extension Lightning 1.0b4 not work with my proposed solution. Though this incompatibility occurs only when using external data devices. I assumed that the button I mentioned is the solution because it worked on my USB flash drive. But now I'm very sure that a bug in Lightning 1.0b4 is the cause.
After considering all the circumstances seems probably the use of linked images of the optimal case to be.
For what it's worth, notice how you only linked to the thread, without posting all of it in your post. "That would have been excessive" might be your response; so, too, would be an image, if you consider the huge number of people who would be exposed to the image. Not a big deal in some cases, but it is in others.
To your greater point of tutorials, a site with such restrictions as this is not ideal. In fact, a site like Wikihow or Instructibles would be better. That way, you make your tutorial, and then you link it. Wikihow can have images and video. I'm not sure about the other; a friend on Facebook uses it a lot. Seems to be much of the same. (In fact, I have a couple Wikihow articles. One is about Portable Firefox (over 16k views!), and one of the "illegal" portable app developers has tried to use this article that I wrote to hijack traffic to his site.)
I would like to point out once again that it was not my main goal, that should be integrated tutorials into the threads. My mention of tutorials should refer only to a fundamental principle that the learning process is much easier and optimal if the learning material is presented visually (Learning through Seeing). Basically, I am firmly convinced that a problem can be discussed more transparent by the use of images. In contrast, by the choice of words may arise ambiguity, since the meaning of words can be interpreted in different ways. That's why I recommended the use of inline images or linked images in the thread. In the meantime, I have come to the realization that the use of linked images priority should be given.
I just want to state my opinion on this: I am glad this forum doesnt have images. If I need them, I can link to them. If the hoster goes out of business, they are gone but that is equally the case if I embed them into my posts.
Side note: We definitively could have a couple of tutorials added
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I share your view and would also appreciate it if the forum could add various tutorials including screenshots.
What do you guys want tutorials for? I'm a writer and I can write guides, and would love to help if it would be needed. I would probably put the tutorial on wikiHow, but due to that site's licensing, John could just copy the guide. Well, I think you can publish under CC-NC-SA; if it's CC-BY-NC-SA he'd have to post a link, though if the illegal "competitors" are still using wikiHow to divert business to their pages (they haven't in the last couple years) that would be a problem. Anyway, I could do screenshots as well as video, depending on the subject. (And my voice is not that terrible. It used to be terrible, but singing in Rockband for a year or two has helped.)
Thank you for your interest to create tutorials. Very often came to this forum the question how to create portable programs. Therefore, I personally think it is a very good idea to create a fundamental tutorial for beginners in this direction. However, there are also a variety of other occasions for tutorials. For example, a comprehensive tutorial (or several) on the topic of Languages. Or a tutorial in which deepens the treatment of the Registry is described. Likewise, a comprehensive tutorial would be recommended on a concrete example. However, this is only an exemplary list. However, would it be probably make more sense if someone submitted to a specific occasion a proposal to create a tutorial.
What software do you use for the creation of tutorials? Personally I use for screenshots PicPick (portable). For video tutorials I use CamStudio (portable), X-Wink (portable and without audio) and Camtasia Studio from TechSmith.
Can't help with making apps portable as that's not a specialty of mine. Admittedly, within the scope of PortableApps.com's business, my knowledge is best described as "the upper end of novice".
WRT software, I'd use CamStudio with a mic for video with audio and Lightscreen to take screenshots, and XnView to clean them up and/or annotate as necessary.